-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
bams_101
New member
Did you? Don't correct somebody when you don't even physics...
F = m*a is an equation for force.
P = f*v is an equation for power.
wingman
Super M0derator
No, i didnt go to school at all.
RyanF
Member
What is the purpose of speed work? Good question. For those of us who need to be fast at something, it makes perfect sense to train speed directly. For those of us who don't need to be fast at something, it does become a bit harder to justify a recommendation for speed work. I know that my quickest movements don't come from squeezing, pushing or pulling as hard as possible, they come from being far looser, so thinking about bench pressing really quickly (for example) results in more misses than successful lifts when I'm approaching my 1RM. However, spending the entire concentric trying to accelerate (ie pushing hard to make the bar move a little faster than it's currently moving) seems to work better for me. So I'm not sure how doing reps quickly would directly help.
A few possibilities were brought up in the original article. Without opening it again, IIRC he mentioned that going from doing something heavy once a week, to doing it heavy once and light once may be a factor. Likewise, practicing the movement without accumulating much fatigue may be a factor. I know that lots of work with light(ish) weights and a very bouncy technique taught me some things about using my glutes while squatting, and pause squats (ie not bouncing at all) are now teaching me some new lessons on glute drive, so perhaps working in different parameters has the general benefit of building skills that you may not be developing otherwise.
Goosey
.
This I like from Dr Ken.
Strength Training: Science or Art?
When strength training became an acceptable part of athletic preparation, and the demonstration of strength gained increased popularity in the form of powerlifting competitions, there was a rush to find “the best way” to train.
When strength training was an esoteric pursuit, little credence was given to the “scientific” aspect of training. The “weight room thug” of the fifties and sixties trained on the basic exercises that were known at the time, utilizing what he saw others doing.
Although a number of magazine magnates crowned themselves as innovators and astute technicians, progress invariably came from consistent hard work, no- frills common sense nutrition, and adequate rest and recuperation.
The fitness boom of the seventies attracted a generation of upwardly mobile hipsters who asked for “answers,” who demanded research- backed explanations for the movements they were asked to do.
Unfortunately, the attainment of fitness and the development of strength doesn’t truly lend itself to “science.”
If you took the time to read the numerous books related to physical fitness, exercise, and nutrition, you would realize that there are as many “scientifically backed” theories as there are authors.
You might also come away with the notion that you needed a stopwatch, pulse counter, blood pressure cuff, calorie and nutrition almanac, $79.95 running shoes, and a complete blood profile in order to achieve a state of fitness.
A perusal of the muscle-building literature would assault you with a variety of periodization programs, mini-cycles, plyometrics, muscle fiber type specialization movements, and exercises that a contortionist would have difficulty with.
Magazine authors propose a new and earth shattering training theory almost monthly, often spurred on by the opportunity to profit from a new product that coincidentally augments their latest and greatest training theorem.
Significantly, the true requisites for increasing strength and cardiovascular fitness have been lost.
The common sense approach to the attainment of strength and health has become a thing of the past, overshadowed by the new, the hip, the “scientific.” I do not believe that the development of strength lends itself to a scientific explanation.
True, legitimate research has given us useful insights, but generally speaking, strength training has marched steadily backward for the past decade as the masses have genuflected to Eastern Bloc verbiage and the “latest” from the California crowd.
The dependence upon hard work and the application of dedicated effort have been replaced by quick hitting anabolic drugs and a vast array of useless equipment.
Perseverance and insistence upon progressive overload utilizing basic exercises that call upon the major muscular structures of the body, are seen as a comical cliche, yet, the average results of training, i.e., the gains made by the vast majority of trainees, are no better now than they were fifteen or twenty years ago, especially if the drug users are culled out of the population sample.
I have had two college football players training with me for a few years. One stands 6-4, 260 lbs, the other 5-8, 236 lbs. One began his strength world indoctrination at 145 lbs, the other at 211 lbs.
In my estimation they have achieved excellent, but not startling gains, and they are much stronger than many competitive lifters, and as muscularly massive as many competitive bodybuilders.
They achieved their gains through consistent, brutally hard training on a few basic multi-joint exercises, always striving to do an additional repetition, or attempting to add another two and a half pounds to the bar.
In short, gains have come less from scientific dictum than through a common sense approach to training which hasn’t changed in the past two decades.
Although there are many exercise routines that will bring results if one works consistently and diligently, brief, intensive training, with or without the benefit of scientific support, appears to be the most efficient way to get bigger and stronger for the majority of trainees.
Most never get to the point of working hard on a few basic movements because they become bogged down in the pursuit of research studies or Soviet literature to support particular training procedures.
It is almost a sad joke that those who put so much physical and emotional energy into becoming strong and fit forget that a few hours a week of swimming, jogging, or playground basketball or soccer, two or three hard, brief weight-training sessions, a sensible diet that allows one to stay lean, and adequate recovery, are usually all the “scientifically directed” activity needed to achieve a lifetime of health, strength and what we usually define as fitness.
Science has allowed great strides in all fields, but once one gives away his or her individuality and common sense truths, and adopts “the program” brought from the mountain by the self-important writers of the popular muscle magazines, training progress is likely to continue its backward slide.
Strength Training: Science or Art?
When strength training became an acceptable part of athletic preparation, and the demonstration of strength gained increased popularity in the form of powerlifting competitions, there was a rush to find “the best way” to train.
When strength training was an esoteric pursuit, little credence was given to the “scientific” aspect of training. The “weight room thug” of the fifties and sixties trained on the basic exercises that were known at the time, utilizing what he saw others doing.
Although a number of magazine magnates crowned themselves as innovators and astute technicians, progress invariably came from consistent hard work, no- frills common sense nutrition, and adequate rest and recuperation.
The fitness boom of the seventies attracted a generation of upwardly mobile hipsters who asked for “answers,” who demanded research- backed explanations for the movements they were asked to do.
Unfortunately, the attainment of fitness and the development of strength doesn’t truly lend itself to “science.”
If you took the time to read the numerous books related to physical fitness, exercise, and nutrition, you would realize that there are as many “scientifically backed” theories as there are authors.
You might also come away with the notion that you needed a stopwatch, pulse counter, blood pressure cuff, calorie and nutrition almanac, $79.95 running shoes, and a complete blood profile in order to achieve a state of fitness.
A perusal of the muscle-building literature would assault you with a variety of periodization programs, mini-cycles, plyometrics, muscle fiber type specialization movements, and exercises that a contortionist would have difficulty with.
Magazine authors propose a new and earth shattering training theory almost monthly, often spurred on by the opportunity to profit from a new product that coincidentally augments their latest and greatest training theorem.
Significantly, the true requisites for increasing strength and cardiovascular fitness have been lost.
The common sense approach to the attainment of strength and health has become a thing of the past, overshadowed by the new, the hip, the “scientific.” I do not believe that the development of strength lends itself to a scientific explanation.
True, legitimate research has given us useful insights, but generally speaking, strength training has marched steadily backward for the past decade as the masses have genuflected to Eastern Bloc verbiage and the “latest” from the California crowd.
The dependence upon hard work and the application of dedicated effort have been replaced by quick hitting anabolic drugs and a vast array of useless equipment.
Perseverance and insistence upon progressive overload utilizing basic exercises that call upon the major muscular structures of the body, are seen as a comical cliche, yet, the average results of training, i.e., the gains made by the vast majority of trainees, are no better now than they were fifteen or twenty years ago, especially if the drug users are culled out of the population sample.
I have had two college football players training with me for a few years. One stands 6-4, 260 lbs, the other 5-8, 236 lbs. One began his strength world indoctrination at 145 lbs, the other at 211 lbs.
In my estimation they have achieved excellent, but not startling gains, and they are much stronger than many competitive lifters, and as muscularly massive as many competitive bodybuilders.
They achieved their gains through consistent, brutally hard training on a few basic multi-joint exercises, always striving to do an additional repetition, or attempting to add another two and a half pounds to the bar.
In short, gains have come less from scientific dictum than through a common sense approach to training which hasn’t changed in the past two decades.
Although there are many exercise routines that will bring results if one works consistently and diligently, brief, intensive training, with or without the benefit of scientific support, appears to be the most efficient way to get bigger and stronger for the majority of trainees.
Most never get to the point of working hard on a few basic movements because they become bogged down in the pursuit of research studies or Soviet literature to support particular training procedures.
It is almost a sad joke that those who put so much physical and emotional energy into becoming strong and fit forget that a few hours a week of swimming, jogging, or playground basketball or soccer, two or three hard, brief weight-training sessions, a sensible diet that allows one to stay lean, and adequate recovery, are usually all the “scientifically directed” activity needed to achieve a lifetime of health, strength and what we usually define as fitness.
Science has allowed great strides in all fields, but once one gives away his or her individuality and common sense truths, and adopts “the program” brought from the mountain by the self-important writers of the popular muscle magazines, training progress is likely to continue its backward slide.
0ni
Registered Rustler
It works for multi-ply equipped lifting. The lifts are very dynamic in nature so increasing power increases the amount of weight you can lift. Exactly like Olympic weightlifting. To quote Zatsiorsky in his seminal work, SAPOST (the south australian postal service manual)
Because of the existence of the explosive strength deficit, it is impossible to attain the maximum of force in fast movements against intermediate resistance. Therefore the method of dynamic effort (lifting/throwing a non-maximal load with the highest attainable speed) is used not for increasing maximal strength but only to improve the rate of force development and explosive strength.
The Hamburgler
Spotter Loader
Which is what Simmons says in every article/video he has done lol
0ni
Registered Rustler
More drama:
Speed Work: Not This Again - Juggernaut Training Systems - Juggernaut Training Systems
https://www.facebook.com/lauraphelpssweatt/posts/10152698686505182
"This sort of commotion spawns from one with limited or no experience on the subject matter who reads one or two articles on the subject (in this case a given strength training methodology) and thereafter allows his own theories to guide him into misdirection and self-proclaimed authority status."
remember that no one on RTS has any experience with powerlifting and they read ONE article and thinks they're all experts
Speed Work: Not This Again - Juggernaut Training Systems - Juggernaut Training Systems
https://www.facebook.com/lauraphelpssweatt/posts/10152698686505182
"This sort of commotion spawns from one with limited or no experience on the subject matter who reads one or two articles on the subject (in this case a given strength training methodology) and thereafter allows his own theories to guide him into misdirection and self-proclaimed authority status."
remember that no one on RTS has any experience with powerlifting and they read ONE article and thinks they're all experts
0ni
Registered Rustler
bams_101
New member
The explosive strength deficit (ESD) is very useful for determining what sort of training protocol an athlete should employ.
For example, there are two AFL players who both have 40" box jumps. Player A weighs 85kg and can Back Squat 120kg for a 1RM, Player B also weighs 85kg and squats 205kg.
From this you can determine that while player B squats over twice his own bodyweight he is relatively bad at producing force quickly (40%ESD), so some benefit will be gained by explosive/speed work. Whereas Player A can move his own bodyweight fairly well (70%ESD) but his squat is lacking and will get more from increasing his 1RM (Fmm).
0ni
Registered Rustler
It's pretty much as simple as:
>Get your squat up to double bodyweight
>Focus on power production
>Put squatting strength on the back burner
For most sports. Obviously this is different for say, weightlifting where you need to produce power at a high percentage of 1RM
The Hamburgler
Spotter Loader
I just read the Wendler one and his first response is highly lolworthy